debian-de...@liska.ath.cx (Olе Streicher) writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow writes:
>> debian-de...@liska.ath.cx (Ole Streicher) writes:
>>> I think the best way would be that debuild/dpkg-buildpackage would not
>>> automatically unapply the patches (so it would leave the source in the
>
>> It does
Goswin von Brederlow writes:
> debian-de...@liska.ath.cx (Ole Streicher) writes:
>> I think the best way would be that debuild/dpkg-buildpackage would not
>> automatically unapply the patches (so it would leave the source in the
> It doesn't automatically unapply the patches. It only restores the
debian-de...@liska.ath.cx (Olе Streicher) writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow writes:
If you need to change a file then that means that file isn't source
anymore but generated. Try switching to out-of-tree builds if you have
something like that.
>>>
>>> What is the advantage of that? F
Goswin von Brederlow writes:
>>> If you need to change a file then that means that file isn't source
>>> anymore but generated. Try switching to out-of-tree builds if you have
>>> something like that.
>>
>> What is the advantage of that? From the Debian policy, I don't see a
>> need why sources sh
debian-de...@liska.ath.cx (Olе Streicher) writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow writes:
>> debian-de...@liska.ath.cx (Olõ Streicher) writes:
>>> James McCoy writes:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 04:23:05PM +0200, Olõ Streicher wrote:
> Unpatching the sources *before* the build process was cle
Goswin von Brederlow writes:
> debian-de...@liska.ath.cx (Olе Streicher) writes:
>> James McCoy writes:
>>> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 04:23:05PM +0200, Olе Streicher wrote:
Unpatching the sources *before* the build process was cleaned up makes
no sense to me at all. Could you provide a
Hi,
Le 18/05/12 13:46, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
>> This works only for the special case that "build" does not change any
>> source file. Otherwise you would also commit the changed source files.
>
> And it better not. There is no excuse for changing source files during
> build. If you need
debian-de...@liska.ath.cx (Olе Streicher) writes:
> James McCoy writes:
>> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 04:23:05PM +0200, Olе Streicher wrote:
>>> Unpatching the sources *before* the build process was cleaned up makes
>>> no sense to me at all. Could you provide a use case for that?
>> As was descri
James McCoy writes:
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 04:23:05PM +0200, Olе Streicher wrote:
>> Unpatching the sources *before* the build process was cleaned up makes
>> no sense to me at all. Could you provide a use case for that?
> As was described in #649531:
>
> vcs clone
> cd repo
> ... tweak
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Le 17/05/12 11:39, James McCoy a écrit :
> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 08:21:23AM +0200, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
>> Le 17/05/12 00:25, James McCoy a écrit :
>>> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 04:23:05PM +0200, Olе Streicher wrote:
Unpatching the sources *befo
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 08:21:23AM +0200, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
> Le 17/05/12 00:25, James McCoy a écrit :
> > On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 04:23:05PM +0200, Olе Streicher wrote:
> >> Unpatching the sources *before* the build process was cleaned up
> >> makes no sense to me at all. Could you provide a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Le 17/05/12 00:25, James McCoy a écrit :
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 04:23:05PM +0200, Olе Streicher wrote:
>> Unpatching the sources *before* the build process was cleaned up
>> makes no sense to me at all. Could you provide a use case for
>> that?
>
>
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 04:23:05PM +0200, Olе Streicher wrote:
> Unpatching the sources *before* the build process was cleaned up makes
> no sense to me at all. Could you provide a use case for that?
As was described in #649531:
vcs clone
cd repo
... tweak a little ...
dpkg-buildpackage;
Hi,
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 09:05:21AM +0200, Olе Streicher wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just discovered that debuild does not behave as I would expect from
> the maintainer's guide [1]:
You should say :-)
I just discovered that debuild does not behave as it is described in the
maintainer's guide. So t
Goswin von Brederlow writes:
> What automatic reversal? There is no automatic reversal. The default
> state of source is with patches applied.
Hmm. I have overlooked this when reading bug report #649531.
The order how the steps are applied, is clearly:
1. patch the sources
2. build the package
debian-de...@liska.ath.cx (Olе Streicher) writes:
> Hi,
>
> I just discovered that debuild does not behave as I would expect from
> the maintainer's guide [1]:
>
> | Cleaning the source and rebuilding the package from your user account
> | is as simple as:
> | $ debuild
> [...]
> | You can clea
James McCoy writes:
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 09:05:21AM +0200, Olе Streicher wrote:
>> What is the rationale behind the automatic reversal of the applied
>> patches before a cleanup?
>
> Quoting from the bug I meant to refer you to (#649531) when closing the
> debuild bug:
>
> On one hand, in d
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 09:05:21AM +0200, Olе Streicher wrote:
> What is the rationale behind the automatic reversal of the applied
> patches before a cleanup?
Quoting from the bug I meant to refer you to (#649531) when closing the
debuild bug:
On one hand, in dpkg's source format v3, the patch
On Mi, 16 Mai 2012, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
> fishy with the default behaviour: anytime you have to patch a file
> which is later modified during build, you have to build with -tc IIRC.
Ouch, I had this case (reautoconf vs patching), it lead me to give
up on it. It simply is not worth the pain.
B
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Le 16/05/12 09:34, Andrey Rahmatullin a ?crit :
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 09:05:21AM +0200, Olе Streicher wrote:
>> I just discovered that debuild does not behave as I would expect
>> from the maintainer's guide [1]:
>>
>> | Cleaning the source and r
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 09:05:21AM +0200, Olе Streicher wrote:
> I just discovered that debuild does not behave as I would expect from
> the maintainer's guide [1]:
>
> | Cleaning the source and rebuilding the package from your user account
> | is as simple as:
> | $ debuild
> [...]
> | You can c
Hi,
I just discovered that debuild does not behave as I would expect from
the maintainer's guide [1]:
| Cleaning the source and rebuilding the package from your user account
| is as simple as:
| $ debuild
[...]
| You can clean the source tree as simply as:
| $ debuild clean
This gives an error
22 matches
Mail list logo
